Radiology missed-diagnosis expert

Expert class library · Medical malpractice · Either side

A radiologist who reviews whether a finding on an X-ray, CT or MRI should have been seen and reported, and whether the reading met the standard of care, often in cases of delayed cancer diagnosis, retained objects or misplaced tubes. Courts generally let experienced radiologists testify to the reading standard and, within their subspecialty, to what the images show about cause, but a physician from another specialty who disclaims knowledge of the radiology standard cannot carry a claim against a radiologist.

What this expert is retained to answer

• Would a reasonable radiologist have seen and reported this finding on the original study, judged without knowledge of the later diagnosis?
• Was the study technically adequate to show the finding, and did the radiologist note any limitation?
• Was a significant or unexpected finding communicated to the ordering physician as the standard requires?
• Is the expert a radiologist, and are their causation opinions within their imaging subspecialty?
• How much did any delay change the stage, treatment or outcome?

Methods

• Blinded and unblinded image review
• Comparison with prior studies
• Review of the report's findings, impressions and recommendations
• Analysis of communication of critical results
• Correlation of imaging with later clinical course

How the testimony is attacked

• Not a radiologist. Defendants argue that only a radiologist can define the reading standard. In Diagnostic X-Ray Physicians v. Lloyd the Kentucky Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment for radiologists accused of missing a retained surgical needle on X-ray, because the plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon expert disclaimed knowledge of the radiology standard of care and never testified that they breached it.
• Causation outside radiology. Opponents argue a radiologist cannot testify to clinical causation. In Tong-Summerford v. Abington Memorial Hospital the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld letting a radiologist with thirty years of experience testify that a feeding tube misplaced in the lung increased the risk of harm, after the trial court limited his causation testimony in part.
• Subspecialty expertise on what the images show. Courts allow radiologists to interpret images for cause within their subspecialty. In McFeeley v. Shah the Superior Court upheld admitting a gastrointestinal radiologist's opinion that a colon perforation came from diverticular disease rather than the tumor, offered to rebut the plaintiff's causation theory.
• Hindsight bias. Defendants stress that a reviewer who knows the later diagnosis looks for the finding, and that blinded review or comparison with what other radiologists would report is a fairer test.
• Scope of the report. Defendants challenge testimony that goes beyond the expert's report. Tong-Summerford held that an image used to illustrate standard practice did not exceed the fair scope of the report.
• Subspecialty mismatch. Defendants argue the expert must practice the defendant's exact subspecialty. In Stokes v. Swofford the Michigan Supreme Court held its matching statute looks to board specialties, so a neuroradiologist could testify against a diagnostic radiologist, though trial courts may still weigh the fit.

What the public record shows

A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, radiolog* AND "standard of care" AND (missed OR misread OR failed) AND expert AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 82 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 4, 2026; broader searches return more. 4 rulings that show how courts handle this class of testimony:

Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.

Under amended Rule 702

Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.

Related classes

• Medical standard-of-care expert
• Emergency medicine standard-of-care expert
• Forensic pathologist (cause and manner of death)

Guides

• Amended Rule 702 After Nearly Three Years: What Courts Exclude

Simulating this class on a matter

Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.

Last reviewed October 4, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.